理論と歴史 : オーストラリア資本主義研究の展望によせて
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
Conflicting values compete for the hegemony in the nation-building of Australia. They are, (1) Capitalism, or 'orthodox' (2) Populism, a plea for restoration of pre-industrial capitalist social formation and (3) Socialism, negation of negation. (2) and (3) are generally termed as radical, in blanket, but the distinction between them is to be drawn up. Historiography reflects the conflict. Brian Fitzpatrick who placed Australia in the major framework of British Capitalism as a victim is now criticised by the recent Australian New Leftists as a populist, while they define Australia not a victim but a collaborator, an aggressive outpost of British, and then U. S. Imperialism. This development is against the background of the postwar world situation in which Australia, a developed country, finds herself living face to face with developing Asian and Pacific peoples. In their eye, Australia is not an immune victim of imperialism. In advancing this plea, they resort to the authority of 'orthodox', quantified history of Noel Butlin which concludes that the economic growth was effected in 1860-90s more on the decision and to the interest of the Australian nation than those of the British. This aroused a criticism from their opposition to challenge the adequacy to quote the conclusions based upon diametrically opposed theories. A debate developed in Labour History, eventually raising two major questions of more general nature; viz., first, the relation or correspondence between theory and history and secondly, the nature and significance as well as the type of a Marxist history, or Marxism's place in Australian historiography.
- 城西大学の論文
- 1978-03-30